AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Video recording of the March WT DRP meeting:
AoD
AoD
|
|
|
Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 1 Study
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
drum118
Superstar
Jeff Morgan
Active Member
Design firm selected -> https://www.canadianconsultingengin...mgo2NOaZz_kp0RIKLX_FESBwBiGncpumLIq0Rn5ZYZyLI
W. K. Lis
Superstar
robmausser
Senior Member
Why does Toronto do everything possible to slow transit expansion?
Expansion of the Shanghai Metro, 1994-2014
From link.
There is no doubt that dictatorial government structures operate more efficiently and quickly. Things move quicker when theres no zoning permits, unions, workers rights, archeological surveys, worker safety protocols, communality involvement feedback, expropriation laws, environmental assessments. Etc etc.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Here, any new government party (or mayor) in power cancels the previous plans, and starts all over again with their "new and improved" plans.
drum118
Superstar
What tunnel as it will screw up the T connection at Cherry St??? Could be the RR corridor or for QQ connection to the existing system.
"Project work will include road design and right of way planning, public realm and landscape design, track design, and tunneling design services for a new LRT tunnel beneath the Gardiner Expressway"
NoahB
Active Member
The REM is being built at Chinese-like speeds...
Some projects in the EU as well. This argument is tired.
ARG1
Senior Member
That's definitely part of it, but economy of scale is also an absolute factor. Despite no longer being a defacto dictatorship (sort of), Moscow is still in full swing with cheap metro expansion. The trick is economy of scale - when Moscow finishes tunneling an extension, instead of abandoning the bores, they dig them out, bury them elsewhere, and they start digging something else. This means extensions are happening constantly, and skilled labour also develops, and the engineers and workers learn how to quickly build and design extensions which lowers costs and construction time. They don't have to spend 10 years designing a route, ordering new tunnel bores, designing new station types, reinvent wayfinding, etc.
Undead
Senior Member
I love how we predictably return to the China-Moscow-EU comparison every now and then. Maybe we're stuck in some sort of sci-fi movie hell loop? lmao
allengeorge
Senior Member
At least part of the problem (as @ARG1 has pointed out) is that we lose institutional knowledge between projects. This means there’s little oversight, and few people involved to really understand the engineering tradeoffs - especially during contracting. It’s made worse by the fact that we build projects in spurts. There’s also lack of political will for cheaper forms of transit design and construction, including cut-and-cover, on-street with transit priority or elevated.
I wonder if the latest round of building is allowing Metrolinx to build up its internal engineering skillset, and if the EELRT/Waterfront LRT is built whether the TTC should lean on them. Just a thought.
I wonder if the latest round of building is allowing Metrolinx to build up its internal engineering skillset, and if the EELRT/Waterfront LRT is built whether the TTC should lean on them. Just a thought.
Northern Light
Superstar
Faster expansion (both planning and construction) comes out of several things.
1) Consistent, forward, planning. (you need to know what you're going to build not just today, or next year, but 10 years from now; that allows alot of the planning, design, consultation, testing (soil, water table etc.) to be done long in advance.
2) Continuous build. As @allengeorge notes above, this is about institutional memory; but its also about re-use of existing equipment, and reducing staging time etc, as @ARG1 notes.
3) Extensions over new lines in many cases. Extensions of existing subway or LRT can generally be opened in small segments or even one station at a time. We tend to treat these things as mega-projects and build it all at once, and open it all at once.
That is necessary if building an entirely new line............but, for instance, if we chose, we could be putting all our effort into the SSE going north from Kennedy and open a Lawrence Station within 3-4 years, followed by Scarborough Town Centre 2 years later and McCowan the year after that. Likewise, Yonge North could go to Cummer in 3 years, easily, and to Steeles in 5, then keep going north until we reach a point where we really want to stop.
4) Employing both planning and construction management practices that can expedite delivery. Beyond going above-grade/elevated/trenched etc, where possible; the use of cut-and-cover, shallower tunnels/stations (which is very do-able, can shave 25% off construction time/cost; as well as 24-hour construction and larger labour pools. That last bit can drive costs up (paying shift premiums); but also saves time, which is money.
5) Not over-building stations; aside from depth, we tend to build stations that are too large by any reasonable measure. Its true that Line 1 and portions of Line 2 were really under-built from a capacity growth point of view; but we've gone to the opposite extreme. This, I think, is partially predicated on the slow nature of network build-out. ie. If you knew that Relief/Ontario Line would reach Steeles within 10 years of Line 1 being extended to same; you might choose to build a much smaller Steeles Station, as it would have a significant portion of its passenger load shifted to the east.
6) Lastly, on consultation, we really ought to streamline, not to cut out meaningful consultation, but to cut out meaningless consultation.
Truthfully, most consultations have next to no impact on whether something will be be built, or what route it will follow.
That's not what consultations are about, whatever we pretend. Politicians, and sometimes, if you're lucky, planners get a say on those high level decisions.
Consultations, in reality serve only 2 purposes, one is mitigation, the other is window dressing; what would the community that will be disrupted by years of construction like as compensation for their trouble? ; and what theme/colour etc would you like in your new station. There is a periodic benefit of consultation when knowledgeable people point out obstacles or problems to planners in advance, which can save money and hassle, but that's incidental, most often.
If we cut consultation back to what's really on the table to change, it saves us all lots of time and money.
1) Consistent, forward, planning. (you need to know what you're going to build not just today, or next year, but 10 years from now; that allows alot of the planning, design, consultation, testing (soil, water table etc.) to be done long in advance.
2) Continuous build. As @allengeorge notes above, this is about institutional memory; but its also about re-use of existing equipment, and reducing staging time etc, as @ARG1 notes.
3) Extensions over new lines in many cases. Extensions of existing subway or LRT can generally be opened in small segments or even one station at a time. We tend to treat these things as mega-projects and build it all at once, and open it all at once.
That is necessary if building an entirely new line............but, for instance, if we chose, we could be putting all our effort into the SSE going north from Kennedy and open a Lawrence Station within 3-4 years, followed by Scarborough Town Centre 2 years later and McCowan the year after that. Likewise, Yonge North could go to Cummer in 3 years, easily, and to Steeles in 5, then keep going north until we reach a point where we really want to stop.
4) Employing both planning and construction management practices that can expedite delivery. Beyond going above-grade/elevated/trenched etc, where possible; the use of cut-and-cover, shallower tunnels/stations (which is very do-able, can shave 25% off construction time/cost; as well as 24-hour construction and larger labour pools. That last bit can drive costs up (paying shift premiums); but also saves time, which is money.
5) Not over-building stations; aside from depth, we tend to build stations that are too large by any reasonable measure. Its true that Line 1 and portions of Line 2 were really under-built from a capacity growth point of view; but we've gone to the opposite extreme. This, I think, is partially predicated on the slow nature of network build-out. ie. If you knew that Relief/Ontario Line would reach Steeles within 10 years of Line 1 being extended to same; you might choose to build a much smaller Steeles Station, as it would have a significant portion of its passenger load shifted to the east.
6) Lastly, on consultation, we really ought to streamline, not to cut out meaningful consultation, but to cut out meaningless consultation.
Truthfully, most consultations have next to no impact on whether something will be be built, or what route it will follow.
That's not what consultations are about, whatever we pretend. Politicians, and sometimes, if you're lucky, planners get a say on those high level decisions.
Consultations, in reality serve only 2 purposes, one is mitigation, the other is window dressing; what would the community that will be disrupted by years of construction like as compensation for their trouble? ; and what theme/colour etc would you like in your new station. There is a periodic benefit of consultation when knowledgeable people point out obstacles or problems to planners in advance, which can save money and hassle, but that's incidental, most often.
If we cut consultation back to what's really on the table to change, it saves us all lots of time and money.
Last edited:
DKsan
Active Member
I would say that Ontario is forward thinking on #1. There are a lot of longer-term transit projects out there that have some of their initial planning done (Trafalgar BRT, 407 Transitway, KW's ION planning process come to mind)...there just needs to be forward momentum from that.
Re #5 with overbuilding stations: With timed-transfers, there's pretty much no need for many of the bus terminals that are now being built on the Crosstown or being anticipated for future lines. On street-transfers are pretty much the norm in a lot of places, and aside from a few stations that are built well-away from the road (Warden comes to mind, as well as Kipling). Islington, IMO for example, doesn't need a new terminal, the buses there should either be interlined or use on-street loops. Maybe if you need some bus bays, look at Brampton Gateway Terminal on-street terminal as an example.
Ironically though, the complaints about the TYSSE extension stations mostly feed into #1: Downsview Park (future Barrie RER), Finch West (under-construction Finch West, future east extension), 407 Station (future transitway) and VMC (aggressive development) are built for future lines/development. Out of those stations, I think only Pioneer Village is overbuilt, and also not anticipating the long-term Steeles RT line that's been on York, Toronto, and Metrolinx's minds for ages now...
Re #5 with overbuilding stations: With timed-transfers, there's pretty much no need for many of the bus terminals that are now being built on the Crosstown or being anticipated for future lines. On street-transfers are pretty much the norm in a lot of places, and aside from a few stations that are built well-away from the road (Warden comes to mind, as well as Kipling). Islington, IMO for example, doesn't need a new terminal, the buses there should either be interlined or use on-street loops. Maybe if you need some bus bays, look at Brampton Gateway Terminal on-street terminal as an example.
Ironically though, the complaints about the TYSSE extension stations mostly feed into #1: Downsview Park (future Barrie RER), Finch West (under-construction Finch West, future east extension), 407 Station (future transitway) and VMC (aggressive development) are built for future lines/development. Out of those stations, I think only Pioneer Village is overbuilt, and also not anticipating the long-term Steeles RT line that's been on York, Toronto, and Metrolinx's minds for ages now...
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 19,794
- Reaction score
- 28,649
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
I am not sure I would agree that Ontario is well ahead on 'transit planning'. We are probably the world leader on putting lines on maps to show future transit lines but that is REALLY not 'planning'. Maybe wishful thinking or political posturing?
Also not sure I agree that on-street transfers are unnecessary (nor why having timed-transfers makes a difference). Of course, it's not feasible to have them everywhere but it is really MUCH more pleasant to make a transfer indoors and only steps away.
Northern Light
Superstar
We would disagree on #1.
To me Forward Planning does not mean a vague notion of some of the lines we may wish to build at some point in the undetermined future. It means (and I'm just putting examples, don't anyone get caught up on details here)
- Relief Line/OL will be extended to Sheppard beginning in 2032, and will open a station at Lawrence in 2035 and at York Mills in 2037, and at Sheppard in 2039
- Line 2 will be extended to East Mall with work beginning in 2028, and station opening 2031, and will be continuous build to Sherway Gardens with opening dates in 2033, and 2035 for subsequent stations.
- Sheppard West will begin construction in 2034 and Senlac Station will open in 2037, Bathurst in 2039 and the connection to Sheppard West and Wilson Yard in 2041
etc etc.
A complete iterated thought as to what needs to be planned by when, when every tender needs to be issued. That kind of planning also allows all the preparatory work from borehole testing, to public consultation to be out of the way long before the first tender is due.
On #5...........
The TTC does a great job w/easy integration; and I don't see that as a key driver of over-builds. I see building excessive numbers of bus bays as an issue; especially for less frequent services which can/should share a bay. But I also think overbuilds simply mean more people capacity, more ceiling height, more mezzanine space that is necessary even when contemplating a 50-year, high-growth scenario. This is especially true if the excess capacity is being built because of a failure to consider distributed load over a larger network.